Hi, Christian, On 04/23/2013 12:02 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: > After reading the document again, the main issue is that the document > specifies a solution to a problem by detailing a specific > implementation,
I personally disagree (see below). > but does not explain the design choices behind that > solution. As such, we end up with an over constrained specification, > which at the same time fails to explain the problems at hand. Could you please elaborate? > As Mike St-Johns pointed out, the solution is trivial: Can you post an URL for such comment? -- Because I've not been able to find anything sent by Mike along those lines. [....] > Instead, the draft goes into great details on how to actually > implement the random number generator. I disagree. In the draft, F() is the PRF. Where in the I-D are we trying to provide details on how to implement F()? > Apart from not being > necessary, some of these details are wrong. For example, the > suggested algorithm includes an "interface index," but different > operating systems have different ways of enumerating interfaces, and > the variations in enumeration could end up violating the "stable > address" property. Which vaiations are you referring to? (FWIW, this I-D does not require any particular namespeace fr the INterface Index). > I would also explain the inherent issues that have to be solved, > e.g., swapping interfaces, or enabling multi-homed hosts. FWIW, constant addreses when swapping interfaces is not really a goal f tis dcument, but rather a byproduct of it. > And I would > observe that the DAD problem cannot be solved ina reliable way. Could you please elaborate? Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
